New Political Party - Expression of interest

[fiatphoney]

Here is the GDP comment in its entirety. See the underlined bits below. See my use of GDP by incorporating your phrase of GDP?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you should know better than to promote folk economics, in particular the notion that mean income should rise as a % of GDP when compared to the income of the wealthy,

The slur 'folk' economics I give the contempt it deserves, as with all public relation 'straw man' exercises that corporations spew through the media. We exchange trade tariffs for currency wars, send factories overseas and they demand cheaper labour through excessive immigration for the gutted businesses (or should I call them outlets) that remain resulting in hospital services etc etc etc declining. Take away all of this national treason by corporations what would the average worker/sole trader be left with? Higher wages and a better quality of life and standard of living that would rise as a % of GDP when compared to the income of the wealthy. The Anzacs didn't fight for a corporate takeover of our nation. Legacy of generations have been stolen from under us. Look at what the youngest generation now faces in trying to start a family. Only a cold dark soul can't see beyond their own selfishness - which is the corporate way.

The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart.

Yes continue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So I give you a direct answer that incorporates your phrase, 'rise as a % of GDP when compared to the income of the wealthy'

'You refer and cite GDP in order to suit your inconsistent polices.
Make your mind up fiatphoney, are you going to accept that GDP figures are a justifiable measure of economic activity or not?'


Shall I say the sky is red tonight, and you can tell me how I should admit the sky is blue.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Thanks, so you'll use it when it suits you and criticise it when it doesn't. Not a very honest foundation for a political party.

 

[fiatphoney]

Thanks, so you'll use it when it suits you and criticise it when it doesn't. Not a very honest foundation for a political party.

Your rhetoric is dishonest. Here is yet another direct answer I will give you regarding GDP.

Given the conditions of the atmosphere the sky is blue, or red or its dark outside...
Given the conditions of an economy where citizens enjoy a true 'invisible hand' as opposed to a corporate giant's hand, GDP rising would more likely indicate rising quality of life of citizens as GDP rose as stated above because THE CITIZENS ARE THE MAIN PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES, but there remains deficiencies in the measure. In a corporate controlled economy a rising GDP can hide the economically slaughtered citizens, and the deficiencies in the GDP measure becomes much more apparent.

GDP is a measure that is deficient showing the standard of living/quality of life in a complete way.

Keep on bickering, twisting words and offering nothing. Your rhetoric is dishonest.

Quick move onto another groundless argument/accusation... the more dust you kick up might just cover up the topics you refuse to engage and your failed logic.

Empty words. You can't even defend your own livelihoods destruction at open borders libertarianism you profess. You just find and invent points to bicker.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

So why do you use % of GDP to income to argue the growth in wealth inequality yet argue on the other hand that measures of GDP are deficient?

Your position is fallacious because:

1. You argue = wealth inequality when measured as a % of GDP/income is increasing.
2. Yet state = GDP measures showing the standard of living/quality of life are deficient.
3. Therefore, if you intend to be consistent you must also acknowledge statements that wealth inequality when based upon a % of GDP/income must also therefore be deficient.

But you don't, hence your argument is fallacious.

 

[fiatphoney]

Let's measure human progress instead of GDP growth

GDP measures production only. It does not capture collapsing fish stocks, increasing obesity and diabetes, or new types of synthetic drugs. When people choose to work part-time to have a better work-life balance, GDP actually goes down.

This narrow focus distorts our perception of progress. It guides our representatives to focus only on certain things what is measured and allows them to ignore what isn't quantified and regularly reported.

But a new set of measures is slowly being established, which aims to capture a wider range of human experiences and reset our idea of "success".

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/01/lets-measure-human-progress-instead-gdp-growth/

 

[fiatphoney]

So why do you use % of GDP to income to argue the growth in wealth inequality yet argue on the other hand that measures of GDP are deficient?

It's all about the growth and share of the pie. And something called comparison. What grown-ups do.
See article above.
Keep on arguing about nothing, kicking up dust. People see through it, and just can't be bothered posting anymore.

If anyone needs reminding about mmm....shiney! and his style of posting, see here.
http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-80488-fidel-castro-dies-aged-90.html
Pity the other threads got deleted, when he gets himself worked up into hyperhysteria forcing the deletion.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

It's not about sharing the pie at all, it's about increasing the size of the pie and enhancing everyone's wealth ie their capacity to meet their needs or desires. Sharing the pie is a folk economics fallacy, it ignores the fact that productivity improvements increase everyone's prosperity.

But welcome back again, at least your whole post wasn't just ad hominem.

 

[fiatphoney]

It's not about sharing the pie at all, it's about increasing the size of the pie and enhancing everyone's wealth ie their capacity to meet their needs or desires. Sharing the pie is a folk economics fallacy, it ignores the fact that productivity improvements increase everyone's prosperity.

No you are wrong.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/


You are wrong and ignorant of reality.


Go start your own policy thread. No need to take ownership of this thread and welcome me back.


See, when you stop kicking up dirt, we get to see that maybe you shouldn't have stopped - you seem so much more intelligent kicking the ground.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

That's the way! So much better when you post something we can discuss or argue about instead of just inane memes about unicorn poop. :lol:

Ok, for the sake of this debate I'll ignore the commonly agreed upon view that depending upon which data is used, graphs on wages growth or income can show anything from a decline, to stagnation or to growth - depending upon the argument the author is intending to make. Instead, I'll accept the premise made for now.

So let's assume then that the data does accurately reflect wage earnings. The first point that needs to be made is that productivity improvements do improve the wealth of individuals. This is logical when you consider that improvements in productivity mean that we are using less resources to create more goods in order to meet the needs/desires of consumers. The resulting savings made can then be diverted to meeting even more needs/demands etc. This is both self-evident and irrefutable and is rooted in sound economic theory amongst a wide variety of schools.

When one considers the graph though, it begs the question why hasn't the rise in productivity led to a growth in real wages? And for that answer we turn to the authors of that graph from the Economic Policy Institute in the USA. And in their words:

Wage stagnation for the vast majority was not created by abstract economic trends. Rather, wages were suppressed by policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power. In the past few decades, the American economy generated lots of income and wealth that would have allowed substantial living standards gains for every family. The same is true looking forward: Overall income and wealth will continue to grow. The key economic policy question is whether we will adopt policies that enable everyone to participate in a shared prosperity, or whether the growth of income and wealth will continue to accrue excessively and disproportionately to the best-off 1 percent.

http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

In other words, they argue that productivity enhancements have not been reflected in real income growth because of government policy that favour a select group of friends at the expense of the majority of workers. Or to put it another way, whilst they wouldn't admit to it - being a left-wing think tank and all - they point the finger of blame squarely at crony-capitalism.

The cause of the problem is not free-markets, or a failure of economic theory, the problem can be laid fairly at the feet of our central planners, they are inhibiting the capacity for productivity improvements to be passed on to workers by favouring their mates.

 

[BuggedOut]

Two of the best posts I've seen on SS in months....and they were consecutive!

Is it possible that you're both right?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

T

Is it possible that you're both right?

Only in the confines of those two short posts. The source that fiatphoney cited is highly dubious ie their solutions to crony-capitalism read like a communist manifesto, essentially strengthen the power of the State, enact protectionist policies and redistribute earnings. Looks a bit Trumpesque to me:

The first policy choice should be to quickly restore full employment. The Federal Reserve Board can do this by not raising interest rates and slowing the recovery in the name of fighting inflationary pressures until wage growth is much, much stronger. Congress and the president can pursue the return to full employment by making public investments that can create both jobs and future productivity growth. After this, policymakers should support those labor standards that can restore some bargaining power to low- and moderate-wage workers in coming years. That means policy actions such as passing a higher minimum wage, expanding rights to overtime pay, providing paid sick leave, protecting the labor rights of undocumented workers, and restoring the right to collective bargaining. Policymakers should reject trade treaties that provide corporations greater rights and sap our manufacturing job base.

http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Those policies should then see productivity reflecting stagnating wage growth. :lol: :lol:

 

[bordsilver]

I can't talk about the situation in America (which is what fiatphoney posted even though this is apparently a thread about Australian politics), but in Australia the gap between the growth in average real wages growth and worker productivity has been minimal.

The ABS has electronic data on wages since the last half of 1994 (catalogue no. 6302). Taking this in conjunction with CPI (cat. no 6401), average real weekly earnings per person have increased by 24 per cent*. From cat. no. 6202 we can obtain the growth in the number of workers over the same time period (46%) and from cat. no. 5206 we can get the real GDP growth (89%). Consequently real GDP growth per worker (i.e. labour productivity) increased by 29% over the past 22 years which is pretty close to the growth in average real wages.

From the same catalogues it is also possible to pull out the labour productivity on a per hour basis and this was equal to 38%. This means that, on average, people today are working 6.4% less hours compared to 1994. (It is unclear whether the data in fiatphoney's graph accounts for this factor).

Hence, the Atlantic's assertion does not hold in the case of Australia for the past 22 years (have to go to year on year paper records to get a longer time series).

Further, as pointed out in a presentation that Dr. Bob Gregory gave to the Economics Society last month, what is also important to note is that since the 70's there have been some radical changes in the workforce (particularly due to the sexual revolution). First and foremost, the share of women working (especially working full-time) has increased massively while the share of men not working (or working part-time) increased. In addition, the changes in the tax-free thresholds combined with increased casualisation of the workforce means that households do not have to work as many hours to obtain the same take-home pay. According to Bob's calculations, since 1966 this impact is equivalent to an after tax pay increase to workers of just over 10% per hour (with most of the impact happening since the early 1980's). All else equal, it would be expected that this would bid down the growth in pre-tax wages over the same period.


* The average real weekly earning of males increased by 25% while females increased by 26%. However, because the average wage for females is lower and their participation in the workforce has increased faster than for males, the weighted average total wages have only increased by 24%.

 

[bordsilver]

Of course, the average wages in some industries have grown faster than the average (notably Mining, Electricity, gas and water, IT and telecommunications, Finance, Insurance and Professional, scientific and technical services) while others grew slower (notably, Accommodation and food services, and Arts and recreation services).

 

[fiatphoney]

but in Australia the gap between the growth in average real wages growth and worker productivity has been minimal.

The red line of the graph depicted goods-producing wages. Kind of significant to overlook.
Pity you couldn't see the pertinent things about the graph to talk about. But why not go start your own policy thread.

 

[fiatphoney]

The cause of the problem is not free-markets, or a failure of economic theory, the problem can be laid fairly at the feet of our central planners, they are inhibiting the capacity for productivity improvements to be passed on to workers by favouring their mates.

Go on then give some concrete examples of this being done/any real life examples?
Let's talk real world.
And what can be done about it? Not over the rainbow, in the real world.
Abolishing central planning of central banking isn't unique to libertarians, so how about something original.
Or you could state the bleeding obvious and take a few bows, include a few words like dubious - did I preempt your little talk.

Here I'll give you a head start.

'The answer lies mainly in what the Fed's chairman, Alan Greenspan, describes as a powerful recent force in the American economy: job insecurity. In his testimony to Congress yesterday, he clearly elevated this insecurity to major status in central bank policy. Workers have been too worried about keeping their jobs to push for higher wages, he said, and this has been sufficient to hold down inflation without the added restraint of higher interest rates.'
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/b...of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html


Come on post something practical, unique to libertarians, instead of shadow stalking and endless rhetoric.
Aren't you capable of starting your own thread on practical policy, or is it you like playing in libertarian unicorn poop too much.

 

[fiatphoney]

The first point that needs to be made is that productivity improvements do improve the wealth of individuals. This is logical when you consider that improvements in productivity mean that we are using less resources to create more goods in order to meet the needs/desires of consumers. The resulting savings made can then be diverted to meeting even more needs/demands etc. This is both self-evident and irrefutable and is rooted in sound economic theory amongst a wide variety of schools.

Or the resulting savings can go straight into corporate profits. Improving wealth of corporations.
But your writing words like 'self-evident and irrefutable' and by association with impressive jangling 'is rooted in sound economic theory' and 'this is logical'. Notice I didn't even have to resort to negative big important sounding words that cast doubt.

The rhetoric is strong with this one.

 

[bordsilver]

but in Australia the gap between the growth in average real wages growth and worker productivity has been minimal.

The red line of the graph depicted goods-producing wages. Kind of significant to overlook.
Pity you couldn't see the pertinent things about the graph to talk about. But why not go start your own policy thread.

I read the article that you linked to. In it was this graph:

It makes no specific mention of "goods-producing wages". The text just above the graph says: "Though productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked*) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute." Hence, my graph seems to be fully consistent with the methodology used by the EPI except I have kindly done your work for you and extracted the Australia-equivalent data (Your welcome).

However, if your interpretation is true than I am bewildered why you would want to exclude services from the calculation. Surely the only context in which it matters is at the factory level when workers within a specific area are lobbying for a real wage increase based on their productivity. Or do you have a good reason why?

Anyhow, as per the numbers in my post I had also extracted the data at the industry level so it is a cinch to add the "Manufacturing" industry wages growth (although I don't think the ABS releases sufficient data to estimate per worker productivity at the industry level, but with a mobile labour market I don't think it is particularly relevant in the context anyway). Manufacturing real wages grew by 23% over the period in line with average real wages and average productivity growth.

* Actually this confirms my suspicion that the EPI didn't adjust for changes in the average hours worked per person.

 

[bordsilver]

The first point that needs to be made is that productivity improvements do improve the wealth of individuals. This is logical when you consider that improvements in productivity mean that we are using less resources to create more goods in order to meet the needs/desires of consumers. The resulting savings made can then be diverted to meeting even more needs/demands etc. This is both self-evident and irrefutable and is rooted in sound economic theory amongst a wide variety of schools.

Or the resulting savings can go straight into corporate profits. Improving wealth of corporations.
But your writing words like 'self-evident and irrefutable' and by association with impressive jangling 'is rooted in sound economic theory' and 'this is logical'. Notice I didn't even have to resort to negative big important sounding words that cast doubt.

The rhetoric is strong with this one.

As a purported teacher of economics, you should know that even if the productivity savings went purely to corporate profits the rest of the economy still benefits from the freeing up of the real resources. Every tonne of steel, bushel of wheat or hour of labour that is saved from the productivity improvement can be diverted toward other purposes. The profits simply indicate whether a given producer is providing what consumers want in an efficient manner (i.e. are they adding sufficient value to the steel, wheat, labour etc compared to competing uses). mmm....shiney!'s use of strong words is appropriate in this context.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The cause of the problem is not free-markets, or a failure of economic theory, the problem can be laid fairly at the feet of our central planners, they are inhibiting the capacity for productivity improvements to be passed on to workers by favouring their mates.

Go on then give some concrete examples of this being done/any real life examples?

Ummmm, the graph you linked to is evidence of that, as is the article from which it came. The authors claim that policy decisions favouring the wealthy are responsible for stagnating wage growth not a failure of theory. Clearly and evidently the problem is crony-capitalism.

But if you're not happy with that response you could always look at say Obamacare as a recent example of legislation that raises the price of health care, another example of central planning policy that drives the cost of services up forcing consumers to spend their $$ on products that they do not want thereby driving down their purchasing power. Or Obama's refusal to allow the keystone oil pipeline to be built if you want another.

Come on post something practical, unique to libertarians, instead of shadow stalking and endless rhetoric.

I think you'll be finding that you want an Austrian response rather than a libertarian. Don't confuse the two, libertarianism is a political philosophy, not an economic one. We're discussing economics here.

There's some mention on another thread about Minsky v Austrians, it touches on the Austrian perspective and why markets fail in one or two sentences.